Abbassi v. Stoneledge Furniture, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 19, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01745
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YAMA ABBASSI, Case No. 20-cv-1745-BAS-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR ARBITRATION, TO DISMISS PUTATIVE CLASS 14 STONELEDGE FURNITURE, LLC, et CLAIMS, AND FOR LEAVE TO al., 15 AMEND PLEADING (ECF No. 11) Defendants. 16

17 18 19 On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff Yama Abbassi sued Defendants Stoneledge Furniture, 20 LLC and Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., individually and on behalf of the members of 21 the proposed class, alleging violations of the California Labor Code. (State Ct. Compl. 22 (“SCC”), ECF No. 1-2.) Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Binding 23 Arbitration, to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Putative Class Claims on Behalf of All Others Similarly 24 Situated, and to File a First Amended Complaint. (Joint Mot., ECF No. 11.) The parties 25 represent that prior to filing the present action, Abbassi signed and entered into a mutual 26 agreement with Defendant Stoneledge to arbitrate disputes arising from his employment 27 (the “Arbitration Agreement”). (Joint Mot. at 2.) The parties stipulate that the Arbitration 28 Agreement does not require the parties to arbitrate Abbassi’s sixth cause of action, which 1 he brings under the California Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698, et 2 seq. (“PAGA”). (Id.) 3 In the present motion, the parties request the court to: 4 1) dismiss without prejudice all claims against Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.; 5 2) dismiss without prejudice the first five causes of action raised on behalf of the 6 proposed class1 (“Class Claims”); 7 3) grant Abbassi leave to file a First Amended Complaint reflecting the dismissal of 8 the Class Claims and the claims against Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.; 9 4) order Abbassi and Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, to proceed to arbitration for Abbassi’s 10 individual claims, which are the first five causes of action raised on behalf of himself 11 (“Individual Claims”), by a JAMS arbitrator (“the Arbitrator”); 12 5) stay the present action pending the resolution of the arbitration; 13 6) retain jurisdiction over this action; and 14 7) once the arbitration is completed, enter the arbitration award rendered by the 15 Arbitrator as the judgment in this action. 16 (Id.) 17 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion. 18 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all claims against 19 Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. 20 The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Class Claims, which are the 21 first through fifth causes of actions raised against Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, on behalf of 22 the proposed class members. 23 24 25 26 1 The proposed class consists of “[a]ll persons who are employed or have been employed by 27 ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES and/or STONELEDGE in the State of California and classified as a ‘sales leader’ or ‘sales associate’ during the four (4) year period preceding the filing of this action.” 28 1 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the pleading. On or before November 2 ||30, 2020, Plaintiff SHALL file the First Amended Complaint attached to the present 3 || motion. 4 The Court ORDERS Yama Abbassi and Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, to proceed to 5 || arbitration for Abbassi’s Individual Claims, which are the first through fifth causes of 6 || actions raised on behalf of himself. 7 The Court STAYS this action as to all parties and all claims. See 9 U.S.C. § 3. 8 Further, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this 9 || action pending the resolution of the arbitration. The decision to administratively close this 10 || action pending the resolution of the arbitration does not have any jurisdictional effect. See 11 || Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290, 1294 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court order staying judicial 12 || proceedings and compelling arbitration is not appealable even if accompanied by an 13 |}administrative closing. An order administratively closing a case is a docket management 14 || tool that has no jurisdictional effect.’’). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 /) yy 18 || DATED: November 19, 2020 (i A A (Liphan é 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28